Spectrum Defence Fund announced
Mike
As announced in the January edition of RadCom, the Society has established a
Spectrum Defence Fund to challenge Ofcom over its interpretation of the
various Acts and Directives that cover PLA/PLT and the threat they pose.
This may take the form of a Judicial Review, but we will be advised by our
lawyers on the direction to take. The cost of a Judicial Review is likely to
be in excess of �75,000 and we are not guaranteed success. But now is the
time to stand up and be counted and make it known that we, as a community of
radio amateurs and short wave listeners alike are not prepared to accept any
level of interference from non-compliant devices. We are looking to our
administration, Ofcom, to protect our interests, which is their statutory
duty. This is a long term project and all monies donated will be ring-fenced
for those actions alone.
To donate to the Spectrum Defence Fund please make cheques payable to The
Spectrum Defence Fund and send them to Spectrum Defence, RSGB, 3 Abbey
Court, Priory Business Park, Bedford MK44 3WH. Alternative methods of
payment such as PayPal etc will be announced in due course.
The RSGB is appreciative of the efforts and support from Society members,
the UKQRM group and its membership, among many others.
Jimbo ...
Dave
news:hfos2i$ksj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
As Lucifer will confirm after consulting his missus, if any person were to
promote this
cause by the sending money, then that person also, as well as the RSGB, will
become
liable for the costs of OfCom should the case be lost.
Nice of the RSGB to keep that one quiet.
Len GM0ONX
Cobblers to quote Nick. As quoted here Ad Nausium the RSGB is a company
Limited by Guarantee and the total liability for any member in the event
it can't meet its financial liabilities is �1. It is the RSGB that is
taking legal action against OFCOM not those contributing to its defence
fund. Typical anti RSGB crap.
Yeti
> Why bother...the FL wos wurser than any PLT problems.....
>
>
One FL holder near your house won't wipe out the whole of HF.
Unless he's using some REALLY dodgy kit!
Spike
Dave wrote:
You should be grateful they never mentioned non-members (yet again).
--
from
Aero Spike
Not a member of the RSGB for 50 years 1959 - 2009
Len GM0ONX
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:38:58 +0000
> Len GM0ONX <gm0...@goooooglemail.com> wrote:
>
>> As quoted here Ad Nausium the RSGB is a company
>> Limited by Guarantee and the total liability for any member in the event
>> it can't meet its financial liabilities is �1. It is the RSGB that is
>> taking legal action against OFCOM not those contributing to its defence
>> fund.
>
> actions in the past have opened up people associated with the
> complainant to liability, so it is best to be absolutely sure about
> that aspect of the law.
>
Yes, I helped set up HiLight Services Ltd about 10 years ago years ago
and was a Director of the company for a numbers of years on behalf of
the Council. It was set up on behalf of about a dozen local authorities
who owned and developed a software system for street lighting
management. It was also a not for profit Company Limited by Guarantee
where its subscribers were the members.
It was set specifically on the advise of the Council's lawyers to
protect its members (the Councils) from any financial liabilities
arising from any legal action (other than the nominal guarantees).
A group of individuals raising an legal action are an unincorporated
body and MAY be jointly and severally liable for the cost of any legal
action.
The RSGB (Ltd)is an incorporated body and as such is a distinct legal
entity and its members are only liable for the amount they have
guaranteed (�1 each). It the main reason the RSGB is a not for profit
company.
No doubt Nick will point out some minor error in this simplified
explanation but it should be good enough for everyone else.
http://www.ehow.com/about_5049737_definition-company-limited-guarantee.html
HTH
Len GM0ONX
Len GM0ONX
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 23:11:36 +0000, Brian Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk>
>>> Limited by Guarantee and the total liability for any member in the event
>>> it can't meet its financial liabilities is �1. It is the RSGB that is
>>> taking legal action against OFCOM not those contributing to its defence
>>> fund.
>> actions in the past have opened up people associated with the
>> complainant to liability, so it is best to be absolutely sure about
>> that aspect of the law.
>
>
> 73 de Wlat
>
Well strangely enough the ISWL and RAOTA are both unincorporated bodies
and as such you are jointly and severally liable for its financial
liabilities along with its other members. Hope you never get sued!
DieSea
"Len GM0ONX" <gm0...@goooooglemail.com> wrote in message
news:hfpdv9$hcr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>
> Well strangely enough the ISWL and RAOTA are both unincorporated bodies and as
> such you are jointly and severally liable for its financial liabilities along
> with its other members. Hope you never get sued!
>
>
It would be interesting to know if EX members are liable
Len seems to know all the answer to most things
DieSea
DieSea
"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message
news:s7a0i5pasq4rilbss...@4ax.com...
>
>
>>Nice of the RSGB to keep that one quiet.
>
> You should be grateful they never mentioned non-members (yet again).
>
> --
> from
> Aero Spike
> Not a member of the RSGB for 50 years 1959 - 2009
Surely you mean "FREE LOADERS" Spike
DieSea
bill
<gm0...@goooooglemail.com> wrote:
>Yes, I helped set up HiLight Services Ltd about 10 years ago years ago
>and was a Director of the company for a numbers of years on behalf of
>the Council. It was set up on behalf of about a dozen local authorities
>who owned and developed a software system for street lighting
>management. It was also a not for profit Company Limited by Guarantee
>where its subscribers were the members.
>
>It was set specifically on the advise of the Council's lawyers to
>protect its members (the Councils) from any financial liabilities
>arising from any legal action (other than the nominal guarantees).
>
>A group of individuals raising an legal action are an unincorporated
>body and MAY be jointly and severally liable for the cost of any legal
>action.
>
>The RSGB (Ltd)is an incorporated body and as such is a distinct legal
>entity and its members are only liable for the amount they have
>guaranteed (�1 each). It the main reason the RSGB is a not for profit
>company.
>
>No doubt Nick will point out some minor error in this simplified
>explanation but it should be good enough for everyone else.
>
>http://www.ehow.com/about_5049737_definition-company-limited-guarantee.html
>
>HTH
>
>Len GM0ONX
But its knowing about those minor errors that make the difference
between old Nick and the rest of us. and annoyingly he;s always right
:o)
Steve Terry
> established a Spectrum Defence Fund
>
>
Is that like a CB clubs "Bust fund"?
i.e.the members donate money that disappears without trace
Steve Terry
--
Get a free Three 3pay Sim with �2 bonus after �10 top up
http://freeagent.three.co.uk/stand/view/id/5276
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
wrote:
>i.e.the members donate money that disappears without trace
>
>Steve Terry
As does the society's membership.
Is anybody running a book on this year's drop?
Nick.
Jimbo GM4DHJ ...
> Is that like a CB clubs "Bust fund"?
> i.e.the members donate money that disappears without trace
>
> Steve Terry
Like how "The flying Scotsman" disappeared with the Glasgow CB club funds in
the early 80's ........wonder if he is now a hammy mens ........?
Len GM0ONX
For any actions after you left very unlikely! For actions during your
term of membership arguable!
Len GM0ONX
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:57:24 +0000
> Len GM0ONX <gm0...@goooooglemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Brian Morrison wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:38:58 +0000
>>> Len GM0ONX <gm0...@goooooglemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As quoted here Ad Nausium the RSGB is a company
>>>> Limited by Guarantee and the total liability for any member in the event
>>>> it can't meet its financial liabilities is �1. It is the RSGB that is
>>>> taking legal action against OFCOM not those contributing to its defence
>>>> fund.
>>> Have you taken legal advice before making that statement Len? Similar
>>> actions in the past have opened up people associated with the
>>> complainant to liability, so it is best to be absolutely sure about
>>> that aspect of the law.
>>>
>> The RSGB (Ltd)is an incorporated body and as such is a distinct legal
>> entity and its members are only liable for the amount they have
>> guaranteed (�1 each). It the main reason the RSGB is a not for profit
>> company.
>> HTH
>
> Good, it does indeed help.
>
> Now, a question. Would the RSGB be prepared to accept donations from
> non-members? I'd even be prepared to drop by with a brown envelope
> filled with unattributable used fivers if that would help. Just need to
> harvest some random DNA to make them difficult to tie to me, and defeat
> any CCTV cameras near the Cross Park now.....
>
> And, if you win this and get EN55022 non-compliant PLT declared to be
> illegal, I'd be prepared to rejoin the society.
>
Good question, well presented, unfortunately I haven't a clue what the
answer would be! :-)
Len GM0ONX
No he just thinks he is. However I will concede he has a good success
rate (with others of course). :-)
Len GM0ONX
Are you saying that money donated to the RSGB Spectrum defence fund will
disappear without trace?
Len GM0ONX
Sounds like a job for you!
Spike
DieSea wrote:
LOL
Spike
luc...@eternal-flames.gov wrote:
If there's anyone with sufficient brains at the RSGB they will have
gone over the membership records, reduced the old figures and
increased the later ones by ad-hoc amounts, filtered them, added them
to other data series[1], put them in a specially-produced model that
shows an inexorable rise, and proved that this is the hottest decade
on record for membership figures.
[1] Some form of 'Nature Trick', I understand. Is Bedford nearer
nature?
Spike
Len GM0ONX wrote:
>
>A group of individuals raising an legal action are an unincorporated
>body and MAY be jointly and severally liable for the cost of any legal
>action.
IOW, non-members may wish to reconsider whether or not to contribute
to this.
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
wrote:
>If there's anyone with sufficient brains at the RSGB they will have
>gone over the membership records, reduced the old figures and
>increased the later ones by ad-hoc amounts, filtered them, added them
>to other data series[1], put them in a specially-produced model that
>shows an inexorable rise, and proved that this is the hottest decade
>on record for membership figures.
>
>[1] Some form of 'Nature Trick', I understand. Is Bedford nearer
>nature?
I'm sure New Labour will have a computer program they can borrow which
does that.
Nick.
Len GM0ONX
> Len GM0ONX wrote:
>
>> A group of individuals raising an legal action are an unincorporated
>> body and MAY be jointly and severally liable for the cost of any legal
>> action.
>
> IOW, non-members may wish to reconsider whether or not to contribute
> to this.
No not at all Spike. Non members will NOT be putting themselves at any
financial risk but supporting the action financially of company limited
by guarantee. Only those providing the guarantee , its members, have any
liability and that is limited to �1 per member.
Since the RSGB's assets are many times the cost of any action is an
academic point anyway. It would hurt if they lost but it would not
bankrupt them.
Len GM0ONX
Len GM0ONX
>
>
> I'm sure New Labour will have a computer program they can borrow which
> does that.
>
> Nick.
Rent maybe but Labour can't afford to give anything away for nothing!
Ian Wade G3NRW
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 Time: 10:55:40
>
>Since the RSGB's assets are many times the cost of any action is an
>academic point anyway. It would hurt if they lost but it would not
>bankrupt them.
For the RSGB to take on Ofcom would be lunacy. �75000 would disappear in
a matter of days in any legal action, and in the likely event of losing,
the society would be saddled with crippling costs. If the issue at stake
were of interest to the public at large, and the Daily Mail got behind
it, then a pip-squeak organisation like the RSGB might be in with a
chance. But I can't see Daily Mail readers getting worked up over radio
interference, so a successful court action would be highly unlikely.
In life, when you encounter a roadblock, you don't drive straight at it
-- you drive around it. The RSGB should be driving around it, by
spending funds in lobbying behind the scenes at the highest level.
That's if there are any funds left, of course, after squandering �(how
much?) on the Luso tower for installation at Bletchley Park. (The tower
was for sale at the Newark hamvention a couple of months ago for �25000
-- I wonder how *that* is going to show up in the accounts?)
--
73
Ian, G3NRW
RSGB Member
Spike
Ian Wade G3NRW wrote:
>That's if there are any funds left, of course, after squandering �(how
>much?) on the Luso tower for installation at Bletchley Park. (The tower
>was for sale at the Newark hamvention a couple of months ago for �25000
>-- I wonder how *that* is going to show up in the accounts?)
Probably a 'Special Item' following the entry for 'Junkets'.
Len GM0ONX
What makes you think they spent �25K on a tower?
Ian Wade G3NRW
Nothing. Read carefully what I said, Len.
--
73
Ian, G3NRW
Len GM0ONX
In answer to your question about how it will show up it will almost
certainly be shown as part of the Blechley Park project which is being
funded from the surpluses from the sale of Lambda House.
Nedlar
<g3...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
--
Nedlar
Len GM0ONX
Another inspired posting from 'Ned The Lad'. You don't really contribute
anything to debate do you?
John
"Spike" wrote
>
> If there's anyone with sufficient brains at the RSGB they will have
> gone over the membership records, reduced the old figures and
> increased the later ones by ad-hoc amounts, filtered them, added them
> to other data series[1], put them in a specially-produced model that
> shows an inexorable rise, and proved that this is the hottest decade
> on record for membership figures.
You forgot the Powerpoint presentation to the clubs
Nedlar
<g3...@invalid.invalid> writes
>On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 23:11:36 +0000, Brian Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:38:58 +0000
>>Len GM0ONX <gm0...@goooooglemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As quoted here Ad Nausium the RSGB is a company
>>> Limited by Guarantee and the total liability for any member in the event
>>> it can't meet its financial liabilities is �1. It is the RSGB that is
>>> taking legal action against OFCOM not those contributing to its defence
>>> fund.
>>
>>Have you taken legal advice before making that statement Len? Similar
>>actions in the past have opened up people associated with the
>>complainant to liability, so it is best to be absolutely sure about
>>that aspect of the law.
>
>
>73 de Wlat
>
Not too long ago people assisting ' Names' of Lloyds with financial
help, found themselves liable to the costs imposed by the High Court
when the 'Names' action was lost. It makes you wonder what kind of
people are running the RSCB these days. Mind you, when they appoint a
lazy-arsed Class B to be the ' contact for Morse proficiency', then you
just know something's not quite right in the organisation.
--
Nedlar
Nedlar
<gm0...@goooooglemail.com> writes
--
Nedlar
Yeti
> In life, when you encounter a roadblock, you don't drive straight at it
> -- you drive around it.
How exactly do you 'drive round' a neighbour with PLT then?
Incidentally, I think you're right - the RGSB should be lobbying Trading
Standards to raid places selling PLT devices and have their own tests done.
My local trading standards already have a list of places to visit for
this, but they've delayed it until after New year due to the demands
Christmas puts on them.
Jimbo ...
> It makes you wonder what kind of
> people are running the RSCB these days. Mind you, when they appoint a
> lazy-arsed Class B to be the ' contact for Morse proficiency', then you
> just know something's not quite right in the organisation.
>
laugh?....I nearly pissed myself! .......
nick...@gmail.com
> As announced in the January edition of RadCom, the Society has established a
> various Acts and Directives that cover PLA/PLT and the threat they pose.
> This may take the form of a Judicial Review, but we will be advised by our
> lawyers on the direction to take. The cost of a Judicial Review is likely to
> be in excess of £75,000 and we are not guaranteed success. But now is the
> time to stand up and be counted and make it known that we, as a community of
> radio amateurs and short wave listeners alike are not prepared to accept any
> level of interference from non-compliant devices. We are looking to our
> administration, Ofcom, to protect our interests, which is their statutory
> duty. This is a long term project and all monies donated will be ring-fenced
> for those actions alone.
> To donate to the Spectrum Defence Fund please make cheques payable to The
> Spectrum Defence Fund and send them to Spectrum Defence, RSGB, 3 Abbey
> Court, Priory Business Park, Bedford MK44 3WH. Alternative methods of
> payment such as PayPal etc will be announced in due course.
> The RSGB is appreciative of the efforts and support from Society members,
> the UKQRM group and its membership, among many others.
>
> begin 666 spacer_line.gif
> M1TE&.#EA`0`6`( ``/___P```"'Y! ``````+ `````!`!8```($A(^I4 `[
> `
> end
How it's seen by The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/11/rsgb_powerling_networking/ and
at the bottom of that there's a link to the Forum where there's some
comments... ;)